9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the presence of contesting respondents in India even when they were abroad. (d) Such other and further reliefs to give effect to the prayer being made hereinabove and or such other and further reliefs deemed to be just and necessary by this Honourable Court. 2. The case of the petitioners in this application is that Company Law Board passed an interim order on 8.8.2006 for stay on the fixed assets of the company and for authentication of the records by the Bench Officer of the Company Law Board. When the Bench Officer went to authenticate the statutory record of the company on 10.8.2006, the respondents refused to provide inspection as per order dated 8.8.2006. First petitioner says Company Law Board passed an order on 31.1.2007 against the respondents not to file any documents subsequent to the reply filed by respondents on 31.1.2007. First petitioner also filed a Contempt Application before the Honourable High Court, wherein an order was passed on 24.2.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to urge before CLB that the respondents took time of five months to forge and fabricate certain documents. The petitioner says the answering Respondents, without leave of this Bench to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the respondents along with the counter Affidavit dated 13.10.2006 and Sur-Rejoinder dated 12.3.2007. He says it is pertinent to mention the answering respondents filed CA No. 372/2010 on 7.7.2010 for clarification of order dated 8.8.2006 to permit 5th Respondent to lease out the fixed assets of the company M/s Cameo Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. 46, World Trade Centre, Coffee Parade, Mumbai and C-16, MIDC TTC Industrial Estate, Mumbai. The said application was disposed of by this Bench stating this CP will be heard on day-to-day basis from 25.7.2011 to 29.7.2011 at 10.30 a.m. each day. When the respondents filed another application No. 514/2008 for dismissal of CP 70/2006, in that application, Company Law Board passed an order on 16.6.2011 that all contentions in that application would be taken up at the time of final arguments to be started from 25.7.2011 to 29.7.2011. Accordingly, the matter was heard from 25.7.2011 until 27.7.2011, the petitioner side submissions were concluded, when the respondent side was on the verge of concluding their submissions on the main petition, this petitioner filed CA 425/2007 for impleadment of Tara Industries Ltd. as party to the proceedings. Ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition before the Honourable High Court wherein the Honourable High Court passed an order on 24.2.2009 for having the answering respondent already tendered unconditional apology and complied with the order dated 18.8.2006, the contempt petition was disposed of stating that the respondents already complied with the order dated 8.8.2006. He says that the answering respondents were barred from filing any new documents after filing reply in this case. 6. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is this Bench passed an order not to file any new documents, which are inadmissible in nature. It does not mean that the respondents are not permitted to file admissible documents subsequent to filing reply in this case. R-5 says the minutes of Board of Directors annexed to the Sur- Rejoinder are contemporaneous documents with statutory filing of returns of company reflecting increase of share capital and various other documents such as Form No. 2, Annual Returns etc. As to serial No. 2 & 7 pertaining to Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. on pages 45, 47, 51, 56, 59, 60, 65, 67 are concerned, these are statutory documents obtained from MCA, filed by Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd, wherein petitioner No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have come to their notice by in 2007 itself when the respondents filed these documents along with their sur-rejoinder. 4. that the petitioner filed rejoinder in this case on 22.1.2007. Thereafter, within 2 months the respondents filed Sur-Rejoinder on 12.3.2007 enclosing the documents, which the petitioner No. 1 sought for forensic examination after five years. These petitioners did not file any application for forensic examination in 2007 though they knew their existence in the year 2007 itself. 5. that the minutes which the petitioner saying as not contemporaneous, were not signed by the petitioner. They were signed by the Directors in R-l Company but not by the petitioner. Now he wants to find out whether the minutes contemporaneously come into existence, but this petitioner has not mentioned what is the source to say they are not contemporaneous documents except an allegation saying the petitioners must have fabricated these documents in six months time they have taken for filing their reply. 6. that answering respondents 2-6 were called as Nand Lal Group contemporaneously filed statutory forms showing increase of authorised share capital as well as allotment of sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the management will file statutory filings, not others. Therefore, it is not right to attribute that the answering respondents forged first petitioner signatures on the documents of Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. 12. that I must say this petitioner himself stated in the company petition that he was not aware of any proceedings in R-l company for the last 25 years. The persons, who remained in slumber for more than 25 years, could not ask for any relief in a company petition filed u/s 397 & 398 of the Companies Act. If any interlocutory proceedings in main case are to be entertained, court will see whether prima facie case is there in the main case, then to see whether interlocutory proceedings initiated are relevant to the main case, then to see whether any such interlocutory proceedings are vexatious and frivolous, then to see the relief sought in the interlocutory proceedings initiated have any bearing on the main relief, then to see whether such interlocutory proceedings are initiated contemporaneously as soon as he got knowledge of the facts leading to filing interlocutory proceedings, then only court will use its discretion to grant such relief, otherwise the whole exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese answering respondents have not filed statutory documents timely, therefore, it will be presumed that it is very much in the notice of the petitioners as and when allotments are made to the respondents. In case the petitioner wants to rebut that presumption to show the petitioner believes these disputed documents are not genuine, he has to reason on what basis he arrived to that belief, for which also there shall be timely action. 15. that it is the case of the respondents that R-l Company is loss-making company and these answering respondents have been infusing funds in R-l company from time to time. 16. that the petitioner seeking forensic examination over minutes of the Board as not contemporaneous is far fetching because it is the respondents, continuing as directors, signed upon these minutes from last 30 years till 2004. It could be assumed that they would manipulate records for filing before Court of Law but how could they manipulate statutory forms filed before RoC from time to time over a period of thirty years. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the petitioners for forensic examination of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of R-l company is far fetching and not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
